The
petitioner, the maternal grandmother of the minor children,
[1]
appeals from the judgments of the trial court denying her
petitions to terminate the parental rights of the respondent
father as to his children, J, N and C.[2] On appeal, the
petitioner challenges the trial court's conclusion that
she had failed to prove the nonexistence of an ongoing
parent-child relationship by clear and convincing evidence as
required by General Statutes § 45a-717 (g) (2)
(C).[3]
The petitioner argues, inter alia, that the trial court
applied the incorrect legal test to determine whether such a
relationship exists by focusing on the respondent's
actions rather than the children's
feelings.[4] We agree that the trial court applied the
incorrect test because the court legally and logically cannot
have found both that a parent-child relationship exists and
that the custodians prevented such a relationship from
existing. Moreover, even under the test as applied, the trial
court's conclusions are inconsistent. Accordingly, we
reverse the judgments of the trial court and remand the case
for a new trial.

The
following facts and procedural history are relevant to our
consideration of this appeal. The respondent and the mother
married in 2008. They had three children together: J was born
in the fall of 2006, N in the summer of 2008 and C in the
summer of 2012. The respondent, the mother and the children
lived together first in an apartment and then in the maternal
grandparents' (grandparents) home.

In
April, 2014, the respondent was arrested on several counts of
sexual assault of minors. In July, 2014, the mother was
arrested for conspiring with the respondent to commit the
same. Although the children were not among the victims of
these crimes, the mother's minor sister (aunt),
[5] who
also resided with the grandparents at the time, was.

Following
the parents' arrests, the grandparents successfully
petitioned the Ellington Probate Court for custody. Because
the aunt still resided with the grandparents, a protective
order was entered prohibiting the respondent from contacting
the aunt's immediate family, including her parents and
siblings.

After a
criminal trial, the respondent was convicted on all counts
and was sentenced in January, 2016, to twenty-nine years
incarceration. The mother pleaded guilty and was sentenced in
March, 2015, to five years incarceration.[6] At first, the
children did not know that the respondent had been
incarcerated. The grandparents later told the children that
the respondent was in prison for hitting their mother. The
respondent has had no contact with the children since his
incarceration.

The
petitioner first filed her petitions for termination of both
parents' parental rights in the Ellington Probate Court
in November, 2015. After initially alleging the statutory
ground of denial of care by parental acts of commission or
omission, [7] the petitioner, with leave of the court,
amended her petitions in November, 2016, to allege the
statutory grounds of abandonment and the nonexistence of an
ongoing parent-child relationship. The attorney for the minor
children moved to transfer the matter from the Probate Court
to the Superior Court, which motion was granted in May, 2016.
Shortly before the trial, the court appointed a guardian ad
litem to represent the best interests of the children. As
part of the proceedings, the Department of Children and
Families (department) was ordered to complete a social study
in April, 2016, pursuant to § 45a-717 (e).[8] The study
ultimately recommended termination of the parental rights of
the respondent, but not the mother. The mother nevertheless
consented to the termination of her parental rights four
months later.

After a
two-day trial in January, 2017, the court denied the petition
to terminate the respondent's parental rights, concluding
that the petitioner had failed to prove either abandonment or
the lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship by clear and
convincing evidence. In its memorandum of decision, the court
made the following adjudicatory findings and legal
conclusions with respect to the existence or lack of an
ongoing parent-child relationship.

‘‘Here,
the court finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated that
there is a lack of a parent-child relationship nor that it
would be detrimental to allow further time for the
establishment of the relationship. Again, prior to his
incarceration, [the] respondent father worked and provided
for the children financially. [The] respondent father threw
birthday parties and actively participated in the
children's daily activities. [The] respondent father
facilitated a relationship between the minor children and
their maternal relatives. [The] respondent father is
prohibited from making contact with the home of the maternal
grandparents/legal guardian due to a protective order. During
the pendency of his incarceration, [the] respondent father
contacted the [department] to request assistance in having
contact with his children. [The] respondent father also
signed up to have Christmas gifts sent to the children
through a program that purchases gifts for the children of
incarcerated parents. On December 9, 2014, [the] respondent
father, through the Probate Court, requested updates
regarding his children. The legal guardians agreed but did
not provide updates. The Connecticut Appellate Court in
In re Carla C., [167 Conn.App. 248');">167 Conn.App. 248, 143 A.3d 677
(2016)] found that ‘when a custodial parent has
interfered with an incarcerated parent's visitation and
other efforts to maintain an ongoing parent-child
relationship with the parties' child, the custodial
parent cannot terminate the noncustodial parent's
parental rights on the ground of no ongoing parent-child
relationship.' [Id., 251]. Further, our Supreme
Court, with the legislature's acquiescence, effectively
has relaxed the requirement that a noncustodial parent's
provision for a child's needs be on a ‘continuing,
day-to-day basis' where visitation rights are limited:
‘Our 1979 decision in In re Juvenile Appeal
(Anonymous), 177 Conn. [648, 675, 420 A.2d 875 (1979)],
expressly rejected the trial court's determination that
no ongoing parent-child relationship meant no
meaningful relationship.' [Emphasis in
original.] In re Carla C., [supra, 267 n.19].

‘‘[The]
respondent father is prohibited from having contact with the
minor children because of the protective order disallowing
contact with the home of the [petitioner]. Despite the order,
[the] father has reached out to [the department], and the
Probate Court to facilitate contact. No party has facilitated
contact with the children and father. The [petitioner] agreed
to facilitate contact in 2014 but has not done so. The
[petitioner] is custodial and has now filed a petition to
terminate [the] respondent father's parental rights
alleging lack of parental contact. The children have
developed a substantial bond with the legal guardians who
wish to adopt the children. The court in In re Jessica
M., 217 Conn. [459, 475, 586 A.2d 597 (1991)], noted
that although the ability and willingness of the guardians to
adopt the child might be relevant to a best interest
determination, it is irrelevant in determining whether an
ongoing parent-child relationship existed.

‘‘There
was no evidence presented by the petitioner at trial that
would support a claim that additional time to reestablish a
relationship with the children would be detrimental. The
statements of dislike by very young children with false
information about their father does not establish by clear
and convincing evidence that reestablishing a relationship
would be detrimental.''

In
regard to the § 45a-717 (i) criteria, the court did not
find ‘‘by clear and convincing evidence that the
necessary statutory ground alleged by the petitioner for the
termination of the parent's parental rights have been
proven. However, before making a decision on whether or not
to terminate the respondents' parental rights, the court
must consider and make findings on each of the six criteria
set out in . . . § 45a-717 ([i]).'' The court
found the criteria to have been established by clear and
convincing evidence.

Specifically,
with regard to the sixth criteria concerning ‘‘
‘[t]he extent to which a parent has been prevented from
maintaining a meaningful relationship by the unreasonable act
of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the
parent, ' '' the court found that
‘‘[t]here was no evidence presented demonstrating
that [the] father was prevented from maintaining a meaningful
relationship by the unreasonable acts of another person or by
the economic circumstances of the parent.'' This
appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as
necessary.

We
begin with the applicable legal principles. Termination of
parental rights upon a petition by a private party is defined
as ‘‘the complete severance by court order of the
legal relationship, with all its rights and responsibilities,
between the child and the child's parent . . .
.'' General Statutes § 45a-707 (8).
‘‘It is, accordingly, a most serious and
sensitive judicial action.'' (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) In re Jessica M., supra, 217 Conn.
464. See also In re Juvenile Appeal (Anonymous),
supra, 177 Conn. 671.

General
Statutes § 45a-715 (a) (2) permits a child's
guardian, among others, to petition the Probate Court to
terminate the parental rights of that child's
parent(s).[9]‘‘In order to terminate a
parent's parental rights under § 45a-717, the
petitioner is required to prove, by clear and convincing
evidence, that any one of the seven grounds for termination
delineated in § 45a-717 (g) (2) exists and that
termination is in the best interest of the child. General
Statutes § 45a-717 (g) (1).'' In re Brian
T., 134 Conn.App. 1, 10, 38 A.3d 114 (2012). Those seven
grounds are: abandonment, acts of parental commission or
omission, no ongoing parent-child relationship,
neglect/abuse, failure to rehabilitate, causing the death of
another child or committing a sexual assault that results in
the conception of the child. General Statutes § 45a-717
(g) (2).

‘‘A
hearing on a petition to terminate parental rights consists
of two phases: the adjudicatory phase and the dispositional
phase. During the adjudicatory phase, the trial court must
determine whether one or more grounds for termination of
parental rights set forth in . . . [§] 45a-717 (g) (2)
has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. . . .

‘‘In
the dispositional phase . . . the emphasis appropriately
shifts from the conduct of the parent to the best interest of
the child. . . . The best interests of the child include the
child's interests in sustained growth, development,
well-being, and continuity and stability of [her]
environment. . . . [T]he trial court must determine whether
it is established by clear and convincing evidence that the
continuation of the respondent's parental rights is not
in the best interest of the child. ...

‘‘Clear
and convincing proof is a demanding standard denot[ing] a
degree of belief that lies between the belief that is
required to find the truth or existence of the [fact in
issue] in an ordinary civil action and the belief that is
required to find guilt in a criminal prosecution. . . . [The
burden] is sustained if evidence induces in the mind of the
trier a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly
probably true, that the probability that they are true or
exist is substantially greater than the probability that they
are false or do not exist. . . .

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lsquo;&lsquo;Our
standard of review on appeal from a termination of parental
rights is whether the challenged findings are clearly
erroneous.[10] . . . The determinations reached by the
trial court that the evidence is clear and convincing will be
disturbed only if [the challenged] finding is not supported
by ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.